Climategate, AP Not Impressed

[Zona]

Associated Press reads ALL stolen emails on climate change and...


Nothing....

Damn fox looks dumb. Again.

 

[The T]

Associated Press reads ALL stolen emails on climate change and...


Nothing....

Damn fox looks dumb. Again.

Zona reads a thread and...

He looks dumb (again)...

 

[Oddball]

Why did the AP look at the emails but not the data?

It is the data that is the incriminating part.

The code in the HARRY READ ME file portion of the leaked info will take awhile longer to unravel.

The good news is that there's no room for spin or "it depends upon what your meaning of the word 'is' is" semantic bullshitting in FORTRAN code.

 

[edthecynic]

Why did the AP look at the emails but not the data?

It is the data that is the incriminating part.

Since you are intimately familiar with the data, please post the "incriminating" data!

 

[Old Rocks]

At the rate that Palin tells lies, appropriate.

 

[Zona]

Associated Press reads ALL stolen emails on climate change and...


Nothing....

Damn fox looks dumb. Again.

Zona reads a thread and...

He looks dumb (again)...

I heard you denied things. I see its true. They got nothing. Global warming is real, but then again you think Mark Levin makes sense. Yuck.

 

[Oddball]

....as Baghdad Bob and Tariq Aziz give their testimony, as character witnesses for Saddam.

 

[Old Rocks]

....as Baghdad Bob and Tariq Aziz give their testimony, as character witnesses for Saddam.

No evidence to present. Just name calling. Oh, Howdy Dooodeee..... You are still a puppet with a nose three feet long.

 

[Si modo]

Originally Posted by Si modo
I will ask what a 'denier' denies (I have yet to get an answer on that, in fact just yesterday, one couldn't even articulate what he meant, but at least he tried and failed).

Always the dumb act!!!

In this thread alone you have deniers denying that there is warming. ....

Show me where I have.

What am I denying?

What am I denying?

What am I denying?

What am I denying?

Keep playing dumb!!!

You asked what DENIERS deny and I pointed out that the deniers deny that the Earth is warming, complete with examples from this very thread.
You, on the other hand, deny that anyone can show what deniers deny.

Show me where I have denied warming.

Since you chosen to edit out some very relevant information in my post (I can understand why, too as they falsify the models - that means the models are no longer valid, by the way), I'll include the entirety of my post.

Then why have we have 11 years of cooling temperatures while CO2 emmisions have risen? Would someone please answer that question. I wanna know.

Always the dumb act!!!

In this thread alone you have deniers denying that there is warming. ....

Show me where I have.
As I've never cited Monckton when discussing the science, I have no idea what you are talking about.

Oh really?

http://climatesci.org/publications/pdf/R-302.pdf
http://www.leif.org/EOS/2009GL039628-pip.pdf

Just two peer-reviewed examples of falsified models (only one is needed, and note that both are before the apparent scandal).
What am I denying?
Show where I've done any such thing. I use peer-reviewed science.
What am I denying?
So, peer-reviewed science is NOT valid in your amateurish mind?
What am I denying?
Nope. I just show peer-reviewed work which falsifies models.
What am I denying?

.... use tree ring data that is known to be wrong because it does not match direct instrument data. ....

Nope. I just use peer-reviewed science.

.... CON$ always take the known flawed data and claim that correcting the known flaws is cooking the data.

Science, by definition, is not partisan, although I would bet you and others would like it to be.

 

[Oddball]

....as Baghdad Bob and Tariq Aziz give their testimony, as character witnesses for Saddam.

No evidence to present. Just name calling. Oh, Howdy Dooodeee..... You are still a puppet with a nose three feet long.

Yeah...No evidence at all that the lead apoliogist at the AP doing the "fact checking" is their biggest warmist sacremonger hyperbole slinger, or that he has his nose firmly planted up the ass of the IPCC.

Nope...No evidence whatsoever.

 

[The T]

Associated Press reads ALL stolen emails on climate change and...


Nothing....

Damn fox looks dumb. Again.

Zona reads a thread and...

He looks dumb (again)...

I heard you denied things. I see its true. They got nothing. Global warming is real, but then again you think Mark Levin makes sense. Yuck.

Translation: "...I cannot make any sense otherwise, therefore I must follow my instinct and live up to my Alinsky Ways as evidenced in my avatar to attack those Talk hosts that could kick my ass on their WORST DAY...because I am so insignifigant..."

 

[Zona]

Originally Posted by Si modo
I will ask what a 'denier' denies (I have yet to get an answer on that, in fact just yesterday, one couldn't even articulate what he meant, but at least he tried and failed).

Keep playing dumb!!!

You asked what DENIERS deny and I pointed out that the deniers deny that the Earth is warming, complete with examples from this very thread.
You, on the other hand, deny that anyone can show what deniers deny.

Show me where I have denied warming.

Since you chosen to edit out some very relevant information in my post (I can understand why, too as they falsify the models - that means the models are no longer valid, by the way), I'll include the entirety of my post.

Show me where I have.
As I've never cited Monckton when discussing the science, I have no idea what you are talking about.

Oh really?

http://climatesci.org/publications/pdf/R-302.pdf
http://www.leif.org/EOS/2009GL039628-pip.pdf

Just two peer-reviewed examples of falsified models (only one is needed, and note that both are before the apparent scandal).
What am I denying?
Show where I've done any such thing. I use peer-reviewed science.
What am I denying?
So, peer-reviewed science is NOT valid in your amateurish mind?
What am I denying?
Nope. I just show peer-reviewed work which falsifies models.
What am I denying?
Nope. I just use peer-reviewed science.

.... CON$ always take the known flawed data and claim that correcting the known flaws is cooking the data.

Science, by definition, is not partisan, although I would bet you and others would like it to be.

This one is going down as the longest post in history.

 

[edthecynic]

Originally Posted by Si modo
I will ask what a 'denier' denies (I have yet to get an answer on that, in fact just yesterday, one couldn't even articulate what he meant, but at least he tried and failed).

Keep playing dumb!!!

You asked what DENIERS deny and I pointed out that the deniers deny that the Earth is warming, complete with examples from this very thread.
You, on the other hand, deny that anyone can show what deniers deny.

Show me where I have denied warming.

Keep playing dumb.

Again, you asked what DENIERS deny, and THEY deny warming.
YOU deny that anyone can show what deniers deny.

 

[Si modo]

Keep playing dumb!!!

You asked what DENIERS deny and I pointed out that the deniers deny that the Earth is warming, complete with examples from this very thread.
You, on the other hand, deny that anyone can show what deniers deny.

Show me where I have denied warming.

Keep playing dumb.

Again, you asked what DENIERS deny, and THEY deny warming.
YOU deny that anyone can show what deniers deny.

You are the first to actually give me an answer.

Now, you've accused me of being a denier (as you personally define it); show where I have done so. I've asked several times and you haven't. I won't anticipate any support for your accusation as I know none exists.

Also, to recap: you said nothing has been falsified. Yet the models that are actually falsifiable (thus scientific and not pseudo-science) have been. Thus, there are no scientific predictive models that demonstrate doom if policies are not enacted. That would be funny, if it weren't so tragic in how uninformed the proponents of such policy are in actual science.

 

[Care4all]

there are people on this site that deny our planet is warming at all, and say it is cooling, not warming....like sinatra, PP, perhaps Dude and Code also...

and there are people that accept the warming but deny human pollution admitting CO2, contributes to this warming and believe the warming is due to natural causes only.

So there are 2 minds of deniers imo.

 

[dilloduck]

people need to take their thermometers and stick em up thier asses.

 

[Oddball]

there are people on this site that deny our planet is warming at all, and say it is cooling, not warming....like sinatra, PP, perhaps Dude and Code also...

and there are people that accept the warming but deny human pollution admitting CO2, contributes to this warming and believe the warming is due to natural causes only.

So there are 2 minds of deniers imo.

Speaking only for myself, it's been established that the warmest decade of the last 100 years was in the '30s, not the last ten years. NASA has admitted as much. SOURCE Likewise, the general trend has been slightly downward since 1998. That's just the way it is.

One of the biggest gaping holes in the hypothesis that man's industrial activities are to blame for the warming of the last 70 years, and much of the past 20 in particular, is that not a one of the IPCC warmists can quantify, with any reasonable certainty, how much those activities are to blame.... If you can't come up with even a loose approximation of how much X or Y is a determining factor in any equation, then the supposition is flawed from the outset. That's a rule of both mathematics and logic.

Of course, as I have also held all along, the semantics of the warmists are the biggest giveaway that they're probably not on the level. Not the least of which is the term "denier" (i.e. holocaust denier) being tossed around to smear anyone and everyone who dares to question the veracity of the doomsayers.

I'll thank you to ask me about how I think about this next time, m'kay?

 

[edthecynic]

there are people on this site that deny our planet is warming at all, and say it is cooling, not warming....like sinatra, PP, perhaps Dude and Code also...

and there are people that accept the warming but deny human pollution admitting CO2, contributes to this warming and believe the warming is due to natural causes only.

So there are 2 minds of deniers imo.

Speaking only for myself, it's been established that the warmest decade of the last 100 years was in the '30s, not the last ten years. NASA has admitted as much. SOURCE Likewise, the general trend has been slightly downward since 1998. That's just the way it is.

Your turn to play dumb. Care is clearly referring to the WHOLE GLOBE with the words "our planet."
And there you are again in typical CON$ervative fashion, though you will probably deny your CON$ervative habits, lying by half truth. The CON$ervative MO is to leave out critical information, AKA trying to lie to the level of ignorance of your victim.

In this case you left out that the NASA admissions were for the US temps and not GLOBAL temps. Your own link admits that fact, but somehow it didn't make it into your post. 1999 to 2008 is still the warmest decade GLOBALLY in the history of direct instrument measurement.

Again I ask, if the trend was downward (cooler) since 1998, as you falsaely claim, how could 1999 to 2008 be the warmest decade?

 

[Oddball]

Again I ask, if the trend was downward (cooler) since 1998, as you falsaely claim, how could 1999 to 2008 be the warmest decade?

Because it wasn't the warmest decade...The 1930s are still the title holder as the warmest decade.

But all of your arrogant asshat bluster aside, what evidence would you accept that your half-baked Malthusian science fiction hypothesis was wrong?

 

[Chris]

Again I ask, if the trend was downward (cooler) since 1998, as you falsaely claim, how could 1999 to 2008 be the warmest decade?

Because it wasn't the warmest decade...The 1930s are still the title holder as the warmest decade.

But all of your arrogant asshat bluster aside, what evidence would you accept that your half-baked Malthusian science fiction hypothesis was wrong?

Wrong....the 30s were the warmest decade in the U.S., not the world.

How can the absence of clear climate change in the United States be reconciled with continued reports of record global temperature? Part of the "answer" is that U.S. climate has been following a different course than global climate, at least so far. Figure 1 compares the temperature history in the U.S. and the world for the past 120 years. The U.S. has warmed during the past century, but the warming hardly exceeds year-to-year variability. Indeed, in the U.S. the warmest decade was the 1930s and the warmest year was 1934. Global temperature, in contrast, had passed 1930s values by 1980 and the world has warmed at a remarkable rate over the last 25 years.

NASA GISS: Science Briefs: Whither U.S. Climate?